Bill C-3

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to, among other things,
(a) ensure that citizenship by descent is conferred on all persons who were born outside Canada before the coming into force of this enactment to a parent who was a citizen;
(b) confer citizenship by descent on persons born outside Canada after the first generation, on or after the coming into force of this enactment, to a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s birth;
(c) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to all persons born outside Canada who were adopted before the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who was a citizen;
(d) allow citizenship to be granted under section 5.1 of that Act to persons born outside Canada who are adopted on or after the coming into force of this enactment by a parent who is a citizen and who had a substantial connection to Canada before the person’s adoption;
(e) restore citizenship to persons who lost their citizenship because they did not make an application to retain it under the former section 8 of that Act or because they made an application under that section that was not approved; and
(f) allow certain persons who become citizens as a result of the coming into force of this enactment to access a simplified process to renounce their citizenship.

Citizenship Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like the member to listen to a hypothetical situation that is a possible reflection of reality. There are many Canadians, generations of Canadians, who move to another country, and after living in that country for 50 years, 60 years or maybe even much longer than that, come back to Canada.

Applying the same principle, would the member say to those individuals that they should not be entitled to OAS, GIS or Canadian health services? Would he apply that very same principle?

The bottom line, I believe, is that there are some concerns. Let us bring the bill to committee, as opposed to filibustering the legislation, and listen to what even Conservative voters are saying, which is that they want to see more co-operation among all parties in the House. Would the member not agree?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, if this is a filibuster, why is the member for Winnipeg North up talking? He always gets up in debate. This is actually my first chance to talk on Bill C-3, and we just got back. Let us try to work across the aisle here and see if we can make some headway.

I want to read some quotes about Canadians living abroad.

Sergio Karas, who is principal of Karas Immigration Law Professional Corporation, stated:

...many Canadians born abroad live in low-tax countries and regard Canada as an insurance policy if trouble ensues, but have no intention to pay exorbitant Canadian taxes.... Introducing tens of thousands of new citizens without a robust integration plan is reckless. Our social infrastructure is buckling, and health care is under severe pressure. The lack of a clear strategy for accommodating this potential population surge only heightens concerns.

We have to address those concerns first, before we open up citizenship to everybody around the world.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am listening to the Conservatives and wondering if I did the right thing in coming to Ottawa today. Will I make it home safe at the end of the week? Luckily, Bill C‑3 has not passed yet.

I would like to ask my colleague how many potential terrorists are there among the Canadian women who married non-Canadians before 1947 or among the people born between February 15, 1977 and April 16, 1981 and who, at the age of 28, forgot to reapply for Canadian citizenship.

What is my colleague afraid of? What is this major loophole that is being created and that I cannot see that will apparently serve as a gateway for terrorists who were children born abroad, adopted by a now-deceased parent and excluded from obtaining their citizenship?

Those people already followed the process so Canada could ensure it was okay to let them in. Essentially the bill covers individuals whose past we already known and have vetted. Should I still be worried? I would like my colleague to answer that question.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we know what that number is at this point in time. However, we do know that with Bill C-3, people could qualify for Canadian citizenship without ever going through a criminal record background check or without anyone ever looking at whether they appear on anything such as a terrorist list. Under the legislation, they could be two or three generations removed from being a Canadian, and using their citizenship, they could claim the right to return, even if they were on a terrorist watch-list. That has to be changed, and I cannot support Bill C-3 in its present form.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment on what the member for Winnipeg North said. I am looking at the clock, and it is one o'clock. Parliament has been sitting for two hours, and this is maybe the 20th or 21st day in 2025 that Parliament is sitting.

We are trying to have a serious conversation about an important immigration issue, and the parliamentary secretary, who is the only Liberal to have spoken at all today as far as I have seen, says that two hours of debate is too much and that he has had enough. If he has had enough, maybe he can go do something else and let others participate in the conversation.

In the meantime, I would say that this is literally our job: to discuss important issues before the House. If the parliamentary secretary does not want to do the job anymore, that is up to him, but we need to actually talk about major public issues facing the country. That is our job. It is the purpose of the people's House.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree completely with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Again, here we have the member for Winnipeg North, who has been here forever—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate this proposed legislation for the first time in the House of Commons. What makes this debate even more special to me is that it is about citizenship. Like many of us in this House, I am a citizen of Canada who did not acquire Canadian citizenship by virtue of birth; I gained it later in life, when I was almost 20.

Gaining Canadian citizenship is like winning the lottery, and even though I do not recognize our country after 10 years of the Liberals, I still believe that Canada is the best country in the world. Holding Canadian citizenship is a remarkable privilege that should not be afforded loosely to anyone who was not born in Canada.

The bill would confer Canadian citizenship on children of Canadian citizens who were not born in Canada. These are not children born to Canadian-born Canadians living abroad, which is already law, but children whose parents are Canadian but were not born in Canada, and their children and their children's children, in perpetuity, if they meet the substantial connection test. If a Canadian not born in Canada demonstrates that they were present in Canada for only three years in total, not consecutively, their non-Canadian children would also be eligible for Canadian citizenship. My fear is that Bill C-3 seeks to diminish and devalue the value of Canadian citizenship. It is an irresponsible position.

Last week, along with my family, I celebrated our 30th “Canada-versary”, 30 years of blissful existence in Canada. That is why I have a unique perspective on this piece of legislation, as it touches directly on one of the greatest things in the world, one of the most precious documents one could ever imagine: a Canadian passport reflecting Canadian citizenship. My story is not unique; it has been experienced by many Canadians and many members of the House. Is it the story of coming to Canada.

Thirty years ago, Canada was in need of chemical engineers. My father was a chemical engineer. We applied, passed a medical check and passed a criminal background check, and within a short time, we were invited to immigrate to Canada as landed immigrants. The system worked.

I remember the night we came to Canada. It was on September 5, 1995, in the middle of the night. We landed at Pearson airport in Toronto and drove to North York, to Sheppard and Bathurst, inside the heart of the riding I am now blessed to represent in this House. I looked out the window and I saw Earl Bales Park and the Don Lands, and on the other side of the park was Yonge Street, with beautiful lights and towers, in the great riding of Willowdale. I was in love from day one.

We did not have a cent to our name. I remember what true poverty was like. My dad initially sold ice cream off those yellow dixie bicycles. My mom was an unemployed teacher, but it did not matter because I always had a job and always had incredible joy. All we ever needed in order to succeed in Canada was to work hard and be nice to people. That was it. That was the Canadian promise, which my fellow Conservatives and our party leader seek to restore. Since then, I have had every blessing this country has to offer to study, work, succeed, practice law and start a small business, and eventually to be elected to this House to represent the very constituents who welcomed me as an immigrant.

I also remember the day we became Canadian citizens. It was on March 16, 2000. We went to a federal building at St. Clair and Yonge. I remember taking the oath of citizenship with my new fellow Canadians. It was a beautiful thing. It is very sad that the requirement to attend in person to take the oath has recently been diluted by the Liberals. It is shameful.

I remember the judge, who smiled at me. I remember her smiling at me as we were leaving the room after my oath. It was so important to me to speak about this bill because I do not want to see this value diminished.

Canadian citizenship gave rise to future generations of Canadians who helped build this country, who pay taxes and participate in civil society and national conversations, new Canadians who represent Canadians. Many of my friends in the House are new Canadians who represent Canadians in their respective constituencies.

This is why I and my colleagues oppose what Bill C-3 would accomplish, in essence, which is to devalue Canadian citizenship. We already had Justin Trudeau devalue the Canadian passport, eliminating images of Terry Fox in favour of a picture of himself, presumably at Harrington Lake. We would not expect that kind of behaviour from a leader of a democratic country.

Now, the current Prime Minister seeks to devalue our citizenship by offering it in perpetuity to children not born in Canada. The Liberals propose that all one would need to do is spend three years in Canada on and off, which could be a year, could be over a decade or could be dozens of summer vacations, and that would be enough to establish a substantial connection, to pass on our precious Canadian citizenship.

Someone could even have a criminal record and still be eligible for Canadian citizenship as long as one of their parents spent three years in Canada, on and off; this is with no residence, no property, no Canadian employment, no Canadian education, nothing.

I submit, respectfully, that to qualify for Canadian citizenship, one must establish roots in Canada, contribute to our society, get a job, go to school, buy property, at the very least, instead of a short-term stay on and off.

Also, we already have enough crime and chaos on our streets because of Liberal bail and sentencing policies. We rightfully insist that anyone with a criminal record should not be admitted to Canadian citizenship. Canadians and future generations of Canadians will thank us.

I am incredibly grateful for the opportunity to rise in the House to debate this very, very personal piece of legislation. I invite all of us to remember why we stood for office and why we got elected. We got elected for Canadians. We got elected to defend our country and to preserve its culture, its security, its safety, its well-being, its economic well-being.

What this legislation would do is undermine all of that. We look forward to reviewing it at committee, and we hope that our friends across the aisle will sincerely consider some serious amendments to beef up the substantial connection test. Future generations of Canadians will thank us.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am glad that he came to Canada and exercised his Canadian citizenship rights. However, I think it is very important that we avoid creating a bogeyman or criticizing something that is not true.

I am going to share a little story. I am hoping my colleague can give me some advice about one of my constituents, born to Canadian development workers in Africa. He was born outside Canada and wanted to work internationally, which he did in several countries. At one point, he moved to the United States and married an American woman. Now that his parents are ill, he has returned to Canada to take care of them. Unfortunately, the problem is that his children cannot obtain Canadian citizenship. However, his children are not a threat to the national security of Canadians; they are four and six years old.

I would like to know why the hon. member believes that this issue should not be resolved for people who want to contribute to Canadian society.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, we absolutely feel that there is room to look. For those who were born to parents outside of Canada, to parents who are Canadian citizens but who were not born in Canada, we should certainly look at ways to let them become Canadian. The disagreement on this side of the House is with the substantial connection test and with the de minimis requirements that Bill C-3 prescribes.

What I hear from my friend opposite is that the non-Canadian is now living in Canada, that his parents are living in Canada and that he is here, in fact, to help them, which is very commendable, but it sounds to me as if that particular resident has some roots in Canada, which is all we are asking for.

Devise a framework where non-Canadians can become Canadians not by virtue of doing the minimum and showing up for a couple of summer vacations but by living in Canada—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from York Centre for his heartfelt remarks and for sharing his story. I appreciated hearing him talk about how proud he felt during his immigration process, but I was surprised that he expressed concern about people from other countries coming to Canada on a path similar to his own.

As a lawmaker, I want to understand what the Conservatives are opposed to and, more importantly, how they want to close the loophole that could lead to so many problems. They have been talking about citizenship in perpetuity and the substantial connection test. I am trying to understand. What amendment will the Conservatives suggest to the committee to close this loophole?

We all know the Bloc Québécois will have the balance of power in committee, so we certainly need a good understanding of their amendment if we are to fix the bill they claim is so catastrophic.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I reject the proposition that I, in any way, am not in favour of other non-Canadian residents obtaining Canadian citizenship. In fact, I specifically said that new Canadians contribute to our country, pay taxes, work, go to school, contribute to our culture and heritage and even get elected. I would like to preserve that privilege for future generations of Canadians instead of diluting the right to become Canadian, as the legislation seeks to do.

Conservatives would offer various options at committee. We would look at asking the government to amend the act to provide for additional years. We would ask the government to provide for some consecutive terms, something that would enable the establishment of roots in the country, instead of coming and going, as the Liberals propose.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, having been away for the summer, I want to welcome everybody back. It is always a pleasure and an honour to speak on the floor of the House of Commons, something that so few Canadians get to experience. I welcome everybody back. I welcome you, Madam Speaker, back to the chair.

I recently got some sad news. A childhood friend of mine, a friend I went to school with from, I believe, grade 3 or grade 4, Dennis Doyle, passed away tragically and unexpectedly. He leaves behind his father, Peter Doyle; his mother; his sister, Leanne; and his fiancée, Ashley Sumner. This was completely unexpected.

I went to high school with Dennis. He was such a character. Whenever he walked by, everybody would give a good-natured sound effect; if someone knows, they know. To Dennis' family, I am so sorry to hear of his loss. I am going to say it one time for Dennis, in commemoration of his life: bah.

I also wish to recognize the life of Marilyn VanDongen. Marilyn VanDongen was somebody who was so devoted to the community of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family were active participants in the Alzheimer's walk. She was afflicted with this horrible disease, a disease that ultimately took the life of my grandmother.

Marilyn leaves behind her husband, Casey, to whom I awarded a Queen's Platinum Jubilee Medal. She also leaves behind her daughter Diane; son Ken; another son, Neil; and daughter Sheila. Neil and I actually went to kindergarten together, so this is a family I have known for over 40 years. Their contributions cannot be understated. I see Neil and Sheila frequently in the community, and I want to recognize Marilyn's life. May perpetual light shine upon her.

We are talking about immigration today, and I often speak about this topic in the House of Commons. It actually came up in my first speech. It is something that is really close to my heart. People are probably tired of hearing about my family story, but I am going to say it again because I am able to say it again. When I talk about how proud I am to walk onto the floor of the House of Commons, I mean it. Every single day, I just take it in.

In fact, the night I was elected, September 20, 2021, my mother, who came to this country as an immigrant, asked, "What would your grandfather, my father, think if he saw this today?" This simply was not an option for him, to be in the House of Commons. My mom has told a story about how he had to borrow money for a chicken so he could have a chicken on Christmas Day. Those are my roots. That is where I come from.

My mother followed her father, who came when he did not have the money to bring the whole family. He came to Canada to work because he came from a very poor part of Italy. My mother followed him in 1957. My father came with his family in 1959. They met in Canada. My dad actually did not finish high school; he went to work. He went to work at a place called Balco, now named Tolko, a huge employer in British Columbia, and he worked there until he literally could not physically work there anymore. That was the Canada they came to.

My mom spent her time as a homemaker. She went back to school when I was 10 years old and became a legal assistant. On the one hand, we had a mill worker; on the other hand, we had a legal assistant. They had three children: my sister Rosie, my other sister Ellie and then me. My sisters both became teachers, which is a very noble career.

My parents lived that Canadian dream, and now I am living that. To me, that is what this place embodies. That is what Canada embodies.

What do we have to say about that? I owe everything I have to immigration. I would not be standing here were it not for immigration. My parents came to a very different Canada, and places change. When my dad came to Canada, if someone showed up, they got a job. If they worked hard, they kept that job. That was the promise of Canada. That was the Canadian dream.

My dad worked very hard. I know that because I spent a summer working at the sawmill where he worked, and after two shifts, I had never had more respect for my father, knowing the back-breaking labour that he did for over 30 years. There I was, 19 years old, thinking, “I do not know how my dad has done this.” He sacrificed so much. In return, he gave back so much to Canada. I cannot tell members how many hours of volunteerism they gave or how proudly patriotic my family is.

This all comes back to immigration. I owe Canada. We, as a family, owe Canada a tremendous debt of gratitude, and it is against that backdrop that I speak about Bill C-3, a bill on immigration. Frankly, I have heard a number of falsehoods, things I vehemently disagree with from our friends on the Liberal side.

I just heard a question: “Why are we not prepared to welcome Canadians?” Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I received a message from somebody the other day. I had worked with her on a few things. We had worked together on one thing in particular, and she said that she had just gotten her permanent residency. She went through it the right way. I wrote a note back, and I said that I could not wait to sign her citizenship certificate someday.

This idea that Conservatives are not welcoming, that there is a carte blanche “no” to immigration, could not be further from the truth. We are a welcoming party, an inclusive party, and if I look around, even in the House of Commons right now, I see people like me who are first-generation Canadians, who owe everything they have to immigration, or who themselves immigrated, like the member who spoke just before me.

Against that backdrop, we have to ask ourselves how we deal with this and how we deal with immigration law going forward. We have Bill C-3 before us. This bill would eliminate the first-generation limits and grant citizenship to those born abroad if one parent were to spend just 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada, and there would be no criminal record checks.

I want to dive into that. I know I have spoken a lot about my background, but I think it is really important. I wish I had more time to speak to it. Maybe the member for Winnipeg North will pass a unanimous consent motion so that I could keep on talking.

The reality is that for those 1,095 non-consecutive days, or about three years, somebody could divide their time up. How much time are we talking about? How many of those 1,095 non-consecutive days are we looking at? Where are the checks and balances to determine whether the person has actually spent that much time?

What we are talking about is what the courts have called a “substantial connection”, and “substantial” is one of these legal words. I come from a legal background, as most people hear way too much about, but the reality is that “substantial” is one of these legal buzzwords. What does it actually mean? Can I have a substantial connection to a number of places? Do I have a substantial connection, for instance, to the place where my parents came from, where they landed when they first came to Canada, where they settled or other places? I question whether somebody can have a substantial connection to a number of places.

The reality is that Conservatives are completely open. We want to show an angle of compassion and an angle of just immigration and appropriate immigration. I am completely open to that. In fact, I welcome it. I want people to live and experience what I have lived and experienced. I cannot wait to welcome these people with an immigration system that is just, appropriate and reflects Canadian values.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, we have been here all morning listening to Conservative after Conservative stand in their place to say that there are some just cases for which people would be able to have their citizenship if we were to pass this legislation. Members on all sides of the House recognize the value of it, so if the member says that the Conservative Party wants to show progressive forward movement, one of the things it could do is recognize that there have been hours of debate. Back in June, we were debating this legislation.

There is no reason whatsoever that we cannot continue this debate at committee and look at the amendments the Conservatives have. It is a minority government. That means all they have to do is convince a majority of MPs to be on side with them. The opposition has a majority membership on the standing committee.

My question for the member is this: If he is convinced of the amendments the Conservatives apparently have, why not allow it to go to committee?